How can trials be impartial? What guarantees the impartiality in trials?

How can trials be impartial? What guarantees the impartiality in trials?

Trials are guaranteed to be impartial by two means:

• The rule of law

This principle protects against arbitrariness and infringement (= infraction) on individual rights. It covers the respect of procedural rights and abidance (=respect) to constitutional norms.

• Juries in both civil and criminal trials

The Sixth Amendment provides several protections and rights to an individual accused of a crime, it also guarantees the right to a jury (this guaranty is also stated on most states constitutions).

A jury is composed of regular people outside of the judicial systems, also called lay citizens. It develops a human dimension against a strictly judicial dimension. Juries have a different point of view from judges, they’re able to forget the judicial dimension.

Jury represents society. They’re important in trials because they legitimate the sentence. They prevent people to be only judged by the State, therefore it limits the State power in trials.

By extension, juries legitimate the whole judicial system, because of a democratic norm of popular participation.

Oral comprehension: which is better between a trial with a judge and a trial with a jury?

 There is no straight answer to the question, it depends on what the accused has to face.

When the judge is alone, he/she has to consider two issues, the law and the facts. The last one is important because the issue if the trial depends on the guiltiness of the accused.

When there’s a jury, it only looks the issue of fact, therefore judge only has to consider the issue of law // to deal with the rule of law. 

Judge alone is responsible for both the verdict and the sentence. The jury will look at facts; the judge only has to consider the sentence.

Jury trial can be better because a defendant will be able to play the human card. It can be better if you think that you are wrongfully accused.

A trial by jury is better if you think that the accusation is a fabrication (means that it was invented by the prosecution), if you want to prove your innocence.

However, if a defendant recognizes his/her guilt (plead guilty); the judge only trial is a better option. You only have to convince the judge that the degree of criminality is lower than what the prosecutor argues.

The prosecution is powerful and has no safe guard. The absence of a “juge d’instruction” gives power to the prosecution. In the U.S. there’s only an accusatory and adversarial system. The lawyer has to defend, protest against a too strong accusation, because no one else does it.

This only accusatory system causes problems if a defendant hasn’t enough money to have a good lawyer. (subject of next week’s exam).

...